Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

861.404/11–1047

Memorandum Prepared in the, Department of State¹

restricted

[Washington,] November 14, 1947.

According to press reports, Metropolitan Gregory of Leningrad terminated his visit of some three months to the United States on November 1, 1947 when he departed from New York for Odessa aboard the Soviet ship Rossiya (see enclosed FBI memorandum of November 10 regarding possibility that he is still in the United States²). The following items are of interest in connection with his stay in this country.

Metropolitan Gregory’s visit, which was intended (a) to effect “peace” within the Russian Orthodox Church in America and (b) to implement the decision taken by that Church at its 1946 Cleveland Convention³ to accept the “spiritual domination” of the Moscow Patriarchate, was proposed by Patriarch Alexei on January 24, 1947.⁴ Metropolitan Fiofil, head of the American branch of the Church, did not prove receptive to this proposal, evidently suspecting that Gregory’s visit might have political as well as spiritual implications. Gregory’s chief purpose, therefore, was to convince Metropolitan Fiofil and other “reactionary” church officials and laymen of the purely “spiritual” character of the proposed relations, a task which was vastly complicated by the fact that Fiofil and his followers not only steadfastly refused to see Gregory but went to some lengths to avoid a meeting with him. Fiofil, for instance, started on an “inspection tour” of his parishes as soon as Gregory arrived in this country. When Gregory finally flew to San Francisco in an effort to contact Fiofil personally, the latter became so “ill” that he was not allowed to see anyone.⁵ Gregory’s return to New York brought about a quick recovery on the part of Fiofil. A further obstacle to the success of Gregory’s mission was the reported incident (corroborated by the enclosed FBI report of November 6, 1947⁶) averring that at the time of Gregory’s debarkation in New York, several “boxes” which had arrived with his luggage were picked up at the docks and were taken to the Soviet Consulate General in that city. This occurrence was given wide publicity in the Russian-language press in this country by the publication of an open letter from Archbishop Leontii of Chicago⁷ stating that this supported his contention that Metropolitan Gregory’s visit had political as well as religious implications and that he and other high Russian Orthodox Church officials in the U.S.S.R. were being used as “tools” by the Soviet Government.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Metropolitan Gregory’s visit occasioned no apparent progress towards a decision acceptable to all factions of the Church in America, although it did reactivate the problem of relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and probably brought closer the time when a decision will be reached. In this connection a Convention of Bishops was convened in San Francisco on November 12 for the purpose of “clarifying” in the minds of the Church officials in this country the resolution adopted at the 1946 Cleveland Convention. Current press bulletins from the Convention indicate that the Bishops consider the question of relations with the Mother Church as “liquidated”. However, Metropolitan Gregory, who considers his mission to have been a failure, has stated that any such “clarification” emanating from a conference restricted to Church officials will be unacceptable to the Mother Church and that the Moscow Patriarchate considers the first possible opportunity for an acceptable decision as being the general church convention of clergy and laymen to be held in 1949.

Upon “leaving” Gregory stated that the blame for the breakdown of his negotiations with the Church officials in this country lay entirely with “certain bishops” who had insisted upon the insertion in the agreement with the Mother Church of certain “unacceptable clauses”. In his opinion the impasse in negotiations has placed the American branch of the Church in the position of an entity entirely separate from all other branches of the Orthodox Church, in which connection he stated that the interdiction laid upon Metropolitan Fiofil by the Moscow Patriarchate and temporarily suspended during the period of the recent negotiations, could again be considered in force. However, upon his “departure” Metropolitan Gregory announced that he was leaving the way open for future negotiations by accepting a telegraphic offer from Metropolitan Fiofil that each of them appoint a bishop in the United States to carry on whatever future negotiations might appear to be ncessary. Fiofil’s reaction to this announcement was a vigorous denial that he had made such a statement.

Bishop John of Brooklyn, who according to the statement made by Gregory, is Fiofil’s appointee in this regard, summarized the attitude of the “reactionaries” in a recent letter to Mr. Thompson, Chief of the Eastern European Division, in which he said in part:

“The doors of agreement with the Russian Church have not been closed, but a certain dead end is felt. We find ourselves, psychologically, between a desire not to weaken the Church in Moscow, which is the best refuge of the anti-materialistic forces of the Russian people and at the same time not to permit in the slightest degree the utilization of its relations with us for the dissemination of any kind of internal or external Soviet ‘propaganda’ (which would not, of course, come from the Church, itself.) … All this impels us to lay aside the question of agreement with the Russian Church for an indefinite time, if it does not show itself agreeable for its part to our full autonomy, in accordance with the decision of the Cleveland Congress of 1946.”

It is difficult to estimate the percentage of Russian Orthodox Church members in the United States who approve of a spiritual tie with the Moscow Patriarchate but it appears that they are in the majority and that, while they are under no illusions as to the political policies pursued by the Soviet Government, they are unwilling to believe that members of the clergy in the Soviet Union would find it possible even under extreme pressure or for purposes of expediency to collaborate with the Soviet Government on any “extra-religious” undertakings. On the other hand, the “reactionary” element, which fears political implications in connection with the proposed tie with the Moscow Patriarchate, may have been influenced by their desire not to become involved in any of the current investigations of Communists in the United States.

1. Sent to the Embassy in the Soviet Union as an enclosure to instruction 2061 of November 22.
2. Not printed.
3. The VII All-American Council met in Cleveland in November 1946 and requested reunion with the Russian Orthodox Church on the basis of autonomy.
4. The Patriarch Alexey of Moscow and All Russia approved the reception of the Metropolitan Theophilus (Fiofil) of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America and his clergy into religious communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, but schismatic activity still persisted.
5. While in San Francisco the Metropolitan Gregory of Leningrad and Novgorod stated that “his church as well as other religious cults are entirely free from the government in their internal affairs and that the guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of religious faith stated by the constitution [of the Soviet Union] are being strictly upheld.” During and since the war, he said, the church “has been overflowing with believers”. The church had unified its aims with those of the people who had looked to it for religious and moral support so that by this fusion it “gave to the people the necessary strength to endure suffering and destruction and to gain final victory. Since the government could not help but notice this miracle it rewarded the church for its services not only before the native Russian people but indeed before the whole world.” The Metropolitan also averred that “the Russian people have always had a warm feeling of friendship and admiration for the American people and that this feeling remains unchanged.”
6. Not printed.
7. Archbishop Leonty (Leontius) succeeded Theophilus upon his death as Metropolitan.